Moot Case Appellant

3RD JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
Team: - JUMCC312
3rd JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
IN THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF INDIANA .......................................PETITIONER
VS
ARAMBH....................................................RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIANA.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT...................................................................................02
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................03
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................04
❖ CASES CITED
❖ BOOKS REFERRED
❖ STATUTES
❖ ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
❖ TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
❖ LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................10
STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.............................................................................14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................17
PRAYER..........................................................................................................25
Page | 2
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
& AND
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ART ARTICLE
BOM BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ANR ANOTHER
CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CBI CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CR.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRC CONVENTION OF THE RIGTHS OF CHILD
CRI. L. J. / CR. L. J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

DLR DELHI LAW REVIEW
F.I.R FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
ED EDITION
HON‟BLE HONORABLE
I.E. THAT IS
I.P.C. INDIAN PENAL CODE
IBID IBIDEM
ID IDEM
ILR INDIAN LAW REPORT
J.J JUVENILE JUSTICE
ORS OTHER
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASE
SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT
Page | 3
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES AND RULES
1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA 1950.
3. INDIANA EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
4. INDIANA PENAL CODE, 1860.
5. JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
❖ LIST OF CASES CITED

Rakesh Vij V. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, 2005)8 Scc 504.
Francis Coralie V. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Air 1981 Sc 746
Avishek Goenka V. Union of India, 2012 8 Scc 441.
Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon Vs State Of Maharashtra, 2013 13 Scc 1 .
Subramanian Swamy V. Raju, 2014 8 Scc 390.
Atbir V. Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi, 2010 9 Scc 1.
Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab, Air 1980 Sc 898.
Machi Singh V. State of Punjab, Air 1983 Sc 957
Mithu Vs. State of Punjab Air1983 2 Scc 277.
Dadu Vs. State of Maharashtra Air 2000 8 Scc 437.
State of Rajasthan V. Vinod Kumar, 2012 6 Scc 770.
Ravi @ Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan Air 1996 Sc 787.
Jai Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 5 Scc 1
Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Sattan Alias Satyendra And Ors, (2009) SCC 736
State of Karnataka V. Krishnappa. 2000(5) SCC 75
Ramdeo Chauhan V. State of Assam, (2001) 5 SCC 714.
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) V. State of U.P., (2016) SC 509.
Jaya Mala V. Home Secy., Govt., Of J&K, (1982) 2 SCC 538
Page | 4
Gurdev Singh V. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 258

Moti Lal V. State Of M.P, (2004) 2 SCC 469.
Ashwani Kumar Saxena V. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750.
Jabar Singh V. Dinesh, (2010) 3 SCC 757.
Om Prakash V. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 5 SCC 201.
Jyoti Prakash Rai V. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223.
Ram Suresh Singh V. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681.
Abuzar Hossain V. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489.
Jitender Ram @ Jitu V. State of Jharkhand, (2006) 9 SCC 428.
Mohd Wasim And Ors. V. State of U.P., 1992 Cr.LJ 1299.
Bhola Bhagat V. State of Bihar, (1997)8 SCC 720.
Babloo Pasi V. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 13 SCC 133.
Abdul Ise Suleman V. State of Gujarat, 1994
Mohammad Zuber Noormohmad Changwadia Vs. State of Gujarat
State of Karnataka Vs. Raju
Bhawani Vs. State Rajasthan
Dinesh Alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey And Another
Tekan Alias Tekram V. State of Madhya Pradesh
Smt. Vimla Verma V. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Santosh V. The State of Karnataka,
Dara Alias Pintu Petitioner(S) V. State of Punjab (S)
State of Punjab V. Prem Sagar And Others
Santram V. State of Chhattisgarh
Siraj Uddin Ansari V. Bilqees Khatoon
State Of Rajasthan And Others V. Sanyam Lodha.
Sasi Thomas V. State and Others
State of Karnataka V. Narasimha
Siba And Others V. State of Orissa And Anr.
Bharat Abhilash V. State .
Pawan Kumar Deepu V. State
Page | 5
Prabhu V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr Lj 1373 (1373-1374) (Sc).

Nagabhushan Vs. State of Karnataka
Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Pardeshiram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State f Maharashtra
Stalin Vs. State Thr Rep by The Inspector of Police
State of Rajasthan Vs. Meh Ram
Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Dilip Shaw @ Sanatan Vs. State of West Bengal
Paul Vs. State of Kerala
Duleshwar Vs. State of MP (Now Chhattisgarh)
Ananta Kamilya Vs. State of West Bengal
R. Jayapal V. State of Tamil Nadu
Rambir Vs. State of Nct, Delhi
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Palakom Abdul Rahiman Vs. The Station House Officer, Badiadka Police Station,
Kerala
Mani Vs. State of Kerala
Nandlal Vs. State of Maharashtra
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Faquirey
Bhagirath Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [23rd October, 2018]
Rupinder Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Punjab & Others [May 15, 2018]
Manoj Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh [May 15, 2018]
Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc. Vs. State of Punjab And Anr. [May 08, 2018]
Tularam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [May 2, 2018]
Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India And Others [March 27, 2018]
Atul Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Etc. Etc. [January 19, 2018]
Surain Singh Vs. The State of Punjab [April 10, 2017]
Devendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of U.P. [April 6, 2017]
Arjun And Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [February 14, 2017]
Page | 6
BOOKS REFERRED
1.Batuk Lal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Agency, 2017).
2.Dr. J. N. Pandey, Dr. Surendra Sahai Srivastava (ed.), Constitutional Law of India (Central
Law Agency, 54th Edition, 2016).
3.Dr. Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, 9th Edition,
Re.2016).
4.K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publications, 6th Edition,
2016).
5.M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, 8th Edition, 2018).
6. P. S. A. Pillai, Dr. K. I. Vibhute, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis, 12th Edition, Re. 2016).
7. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code ( Lex i s N e x i s, Nagpur, 30th Ed., 2008).
8. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Lexis Nexis, 22nd Edition, 2017).
9.N. Mishra, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Publications, 20th Edition,
2016).
10. Surya Narayan Mishra, Shriniwas Gupta (ed.), Indian Penal Code (Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 20th Edi, 2016). Paras diwas 2020.
11. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Bare Act .
12. Universal Commentary on The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
and Rules by PS NARAYANA Edition 2018.
13. Whiteman Juvenile Delinquency and Parental Responsibility Laws the Wayout for the
Young India by Harshit Sharma Edition 2022.
14.D.P. Varshni How to Frame a Charge: Under Penal Code and Criminal Minor Acts.
15. The Indian Evidence Act 1872 Bare Act 2022 Edition.
Page | 7
ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

1. The Impact of Trauma on Child Development
2. Pathways from Traumatic Child Victimization to Delinquency: Implications for
Juvenile and Permanency Court Proceedings and Decisions
3. Trauma-Informed Approaches to Juvenile Justice: A Critical Race Perspective
4. Police in schools: The complicated impact on students, school environments, and the
juvenile courts
5. Exploring juvenile court outcomes as a function of judge-youth characteristics and
interactions
6. Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Sex Trafficking
of Minors: Associations with Gender, Race, and U.S. Region
7. Evidence-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and Juvenile Justice Policies
that Support Them and commentaries
8. a failure of good intentions: an analysis of juvenile justice reform in san Francisco
during the 1990s
9. public opinion and the foundation of the juvenile court
10. social work effectiveness research: implications for probation and juvenile justice
services
11. estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism
in serious juvenile offenders
12. the knowledge of detained juveniles about the juvenile justice system
13. contested portrayals: medical and legal social control of juvenile sex offenders
14. breaking new ground in juvenile justice settings: assessing for competencies
in juvenile offenders
15. juvenile curfew effects on criminal behaviour and victimization: a systematic review
Page | 8
LEGAL DATABASE
WEBSITES:
1. Blog.ipleader.in
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
3. https://www.scconline.com
4. https://www.lawctopus.com/
5. https://thelawbrigade.com/criminal-law/juvenile-justice-in-india/
6. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/crime/75-of-juveniles-in-2014-were-between-16-
18-years-of-age/
7. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/juvenile-justice-act-has-failed-
miserably/article4337040.ece
Page | 9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant in the present case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana to
initiate the present appeal under article 134 of the constitution of Indiana. The appellant most
humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
present matter.
Page | 10
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aayush almost 18 years of age and Snigdha aged around 17 years study in class 12th of St.
Pascalisca School in the city named Jombia situated in the Republic of Indiana and have been
dating each other for almost a year now and all of their friends know about the fact that they
are romantically involved, their very close friend Arambh who studies with them in the same
class is jealous of this relationship as he likes Snigdha. Everyone including Ayush and
Snigdha knows about Arambh's feelings and often' teases him, but Aayush was a school bully
and had quite—a temper- hence no one dared to approach Snigdha including Arambh.
On 31st May Aayush decided to host his pre-birthday party for his friends at his house, as his
parents were out of town. Since his birthday falls on I June and he is turning 18 he decided
that he will call his friends for a night party including Snigdha and Arambh.
That around 10.30 in the night most of his friends decided to leave the party and only a few
including Snigdha and Arambh were left and the party continued till midnight with loud
music being played.
Arambh started approaching Snigdha and offered her a drink from his glass o which she
refused and still Arambh continued his-advances on Snigdha. Around the same time Aayush
and Ärambh kot into a physical fight as Arambh was trying to get close to Snigdha Aayush
punched him in his liver and he fell unconscious, -Aayush cursed Arambh and threatened to
kill him right then and there.
Literally shaken Snigdha had to get in between to stop Aayush and around 11:10 pm Aayush
took Snigdha to his room, after nearly an hour his other friends also left the party and the next
morning Snigdha complained to her parents when she came back from the party that she has
been molested and raped by Aayush after they went to his room, at the party.
That being extremely furious and enraged her parents lodged a complaint against Aayush and
police went to Aayush house and found the dead body of Arambh on the roof of house.
The Autopsy report of Arambh mentioned liver injury and alcohol poisoning. The forensic
report of Snigdha found no traces of physical injury on her body.
And subsequently, a FIR was registered by the Police Station of Jombia on a written report
given by PW/ I Snigdha on 1.6. 2020.The FIR was registered. After the investigation, the
Page | 11
police filed a charge sheet against Aayush for the offense under Sections, 300 & 376 IPC and
Section 3/4, 5(r)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012,2019 before the Court of Magistrate Class-I, Jombia,
during the investigation the police found out that the mark sheet of 10th class of Aayush
recorded the date of birth as 1st June 2002.
Thereafter aggrieved by this, Aayush filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
High Court of Jombia seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet on the ground that the
accused-petitioner is a minor aged 17 years at the time of the incident and at present his date
of birth dated 1st June, 2004 and the investigating agency is trying to show that petitioner is a
major. Further, the Aadhar card of the accused shows his age. Therefore, the investigation
agency has not done a proper investigation due to media pressure and considered him a major
even though he was a minor. That the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Petition filed under 482 Cr.
P.C was dismissed by the High Court stating:
The disputed questions of fact are involved and, hence, in a petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it cannot be determined, whether the petitioner was major or minor.
Consequently, no interference is warranted at this stage and the present petition is disposed
without commenting on merits about the of the petitioner, the Trial court is at liberty to
proceed with the trial as per law and can accept or reject the charge sheet after recording
reasons in writing, the petitioners are at liberty to present their grievances by way of
appropriate application in trial court hence, the petition is disposed off."
After this, the case was committed by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the Court of Sessions
having jurisdiction to hear cases of 'the Special Court of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offenses Act 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005. Learned Trial
Court, thereupon, accepted the charge sheet and framed charges for the offense under
Sections 302, 376 IPC, and Section 3/4, 5(r)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, 2019. This was
explained to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial, thus trial commenced.
The prosecution produced 3 witnesses apart from 15 documents to prove their case. While in
defense, 7 documents were produced. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Snigdha turned hostile in her cross-examination and one friend PW3) also turned hostile in
favour of the accused. While PW 4 stated that Aayush is very violent and has regularly been
Page | 12
engaged in lights and violence, he also stated that once a school student was bruta l beaten by
Aayush and he was hospitalized for 3 days.
That after hearing the arguments as advanced from the side of prosecution and accused, vis a
vis the material placed on record, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated I .8.2022
convicted and sentenced -the accused-appellant as under Sections 302,376 IPC and Section
3/4, of POCSO Act, 2012.
That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction order 1.8.2022 passed by the
learned Trial Court accused preferred to appeal before the Honourable High Court of Jombia
stating that the impugned final order is based on non-consideration and nonappreciation of
evidence and other material on record, and Honourable High Court in appeal acquitted
Aayush from charges of murder of Arambh stating there exists no nexus between them other
than the body being found on his house and police has not conducted a fair investigation in
the matter and for other offenses, High Court remanded the matter to the court below on the
basis of benefit of doubt regarding the age & circumstantial evidence while recording the fact
and recorded that there exists no reason to destroy future of a young man by sending him to
prison and making him a hardened criminal HC ordered fresh trial with juvenile justice
board giving the benefit of doubt of age to the accused and stating that the trial should have
been in the JJ board .
Aggrieved by the remanding of the matter by the high court, the state filed a petition in the
honourable supreme court of India seeking indulgence in the matter for quashing the order of
the high court and reinstating the order of the trial court, the matter is now listed for
arguments for the above-listed matter.
Page | 13
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Issue 1. Whether high court is right in remanding to juvenile court, when admittedly on
the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly accused
has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
documentary evidences as defence evidence.
Issue 2. Whether the high court is right in treating the accused as juvenile when he
attained 18 years of age and when he does not come under the definition of "juvenile in
conflict with law" under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act.
Issue 3. Whether high court is right in acquitting the accused from the offence of
murder, when the deceased died of liver injury and alchohal poisoning which was
caused by blows giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous alchohal by the
accused.
Issue 4. Whether the high court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the
"evidences of eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and "last seen theory" which
proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Page | 14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1. Whether high court is right in remanding to juvenile court, when admittedly on
the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly accused
has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
It is humbly submitted that the high court is not right in remanding to juvenile court, when
admittedly on the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly
accused has not raised any plea that he is " juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
Issue 2. Whether the high court is right in treating the accused as juvenile when he
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the high court is not right in
treating the accused as juvenile when he attained 18 years of age and when he does not come
under the definition of "juvenile in conflict with law" under section 2(18) of juvenile justice
act.
accused.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the not justified in acquitting the
accused from the offence of murder, when the deceased died of liver injury and alcohol
poisoning which was caused by blows giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous
alcohol by the accused.
Page | 15
Issue 4. Whether the high court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the
remanding the matter ignoring the "evidences of eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and
"last seen theory" which proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts because
these witness plays a vital role so it could not be ignored easily.
Page | 16
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1. Whether high court is right in remanding to juvenile court, when admittedly
on the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly
accused has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the trial court by way of
placing documentary evidences as defence evidence.
It is humbly submitted that the high court is not right in remanding to juvenile court, when
admittedly on the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly
accused has not raised any plea that he is " juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
documentary evidences as defence evidence if we observe the facts deeper he is turning 18 and at
that eve he had turned it means he is an major.
1.1. The protection provided by the act must not be misused in any manner.
I. It is submitted that, the accused here has committed such a grave and heinous offence that he
might have a strong background to alter the original documents and produce forged documents in
the court so in order to attain justice, the court must take another view regarding the on the basis
of matriculation certificate. Similar approach has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme court when
an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter
under the guise of being a minor,1 a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an
accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their
duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted
with the administration of justice.2
II. It is further submitted that during the investigation the police found out that the mark sheet of
10th class of Aayush recorded the date of birth as 1st June 2002 which clearly indicates that the
accused is a major as the real test to determine the age of juvenile is primarily the Matriculation
Certificate.
III. It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that, to render a document admissible under
Section 35 of the Evidence Act, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely:
(i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record;
(ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and
(iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of
his duty especially enjoined by law.
1
Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam, (2001) 5 SCC 714.
2
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) v. State of U.P., (2016) SC 509.
Page | 17
An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section
35 of the Act.
IV. The counsel most humbly submits that the present case is an exceptional case which warrants the
awarding maximum penalty under the law to the accused.3The crime committed by the accused is
not only shocking but it has also jeopardized the society. The awarding of lesser sentence only on
the ground of the appellant being a youth at the time of occurrence cannot be considered as a
mitigating circumstance in view of our findings that the murders committed by him were most
cruel, heinous and dastardly.4We have no doubt that the present case is the rarest of rare case
requiring the maximum penalty imposable under law.
V. Once former Chief Justice of India, Justice V.K. Krishna Iyer stated that we need penal code
because the child is the father of a man and if we’re neglecting the underdevelopment in children,
then we would be guilty of many faults and errors related to abandoning our children.
VI. The frightful incident of “Nirbhaya Delhi Gang Rape Case”5 on December 16, 2012
shocked the whole nation and many debates were started among legal fraternity and
socialists. The main reason and issue of the debate was the involvement of accused, who
was just six months short to attain the age of 18 years. The involvement of the accused in
such a heinous crime of rape forced the Indian Legislation to introduce a new law and
thus, Indian Parliament came up with a new law which is known as “Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection), 2015.
VII. In case of Deoki Nandan Dayma v. State of Uttar Pradesh6the court held that entry in the
register of school mentioning the date of birth of student is admissible evidence in
determining the age of juvenile or to show that whether the accused is juvenile or child.
VIII. Satbir Singh& others v. State of Haryana,7Supreme Court again reiterated that for the
purpose of determination whether accused is juvenile or not, the date of birth which is
recorded in the school records shall be taken into consideration by Juvenile Justice Board.
IX. It is most humbly submitted that the increasing rates of juvenile crime in India in very
concerning issue and need to be focused upon. Although government has laid various
legislation and rules to stop the incidents of juvenile crimes but the present laws on
juveniles is not creating a deterrent effect on the juveniles and thus the results are not
fruitful and legislative intent is not accomplishing.
3
Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 258.
4
Moti Lal v. State of M.P, (2004) 2 SCC 469.
5
AIR 1998 SCC, Del 879 : (1999) 77 DLT 181
6
AIR 1997 i0 SCC 525
7
AIR 2005 SC 3549
Page | 18
X. It is submitted to the Hon’ble court that, it is settled position of law that if the
matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to
prove the correctness, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has
to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused.
Issue 2. whether the high court is right in treating the accused as juvenile when he
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the high court is not right in treating
the accused as juvenile when he attained 18 years of age and when he does not come under the
definition of "juvenile in conflict with law" under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act.
2.1 under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act: -
I. The Indian Parliament has taken a good move in passing a bill in which it clearly
states juveniles between Age 16 and 18 years of age to be tried as adults for heinous
crimes like rape or murder. At present, those under 18 can be sentenced to a
maximum of three years in a reform facility.
II. The amended Act distinguishes children in the age group 16-18 as a category which
can be tried as adults if they are alleged to have committed a heinous offence — one
that attracts a minimum punishment of seven years.
2.2 The true test of juvenility should lie in the mental maturity of the person not his/her
age.
I. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that laying down an authoritative
interpretation to Section 2(k) and 2(l) set out therein should be based on the mental
maturity of the person rather than his age. The NCRB report shows that the rate of
Crimes committed by Juveniles has shown an increase over the past 10 years and by
the data collected by them it stands at 2.6% as of 2013. The Juvenile Justice Board
should be vested with the discretion to impose punishment beyond three years, as
8
limited by Section 15 if the juvenile is mature enough and has committed a grave
offence which is punishable either with life imprisonment or death.
II. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that having regard to the object behind the
enactment, the Act has to be read down to understand that the true test of juvenility is
8
Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Page | 19
not in the age but in the level of mental maturity of the offender. The provisions of
Sections 82 and 83 of the Indiana Penal Code states that while a child below 7 cannot
be held to be criminally liable9 the criminality of those between 7 and 12 10
years has
to be judged by the level of their mental maturity. The same principle should apply to
all children beyond 12 and up to 18 years also. This is how the two statutes i.e.
Indiana Penal Code and the Act has to be harmoniously understood.
III. In the Bombay Blasts Case11, a juvenile was tried and convicted along with adults
under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), and was denied the
protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on
account of the serious nature of the offence and was contend that the purport and
12
effect of Section 1(4) of the Act (Amendment 2006) must be understood in a
limited manner.
IV. Elaborate statistics have been laid before us to show the extent of serious crimes
committed by juveniles and the increase in the rate of such crimes13 . Also, if mature
and cognitive individuals are given the armour of a Special Law allowing them to
commit offences under the Indiana Penal Code without any liability, they would breed
within themselves enraged criminals with psychotic tendencies. Fake documents
would throng and act as a weapon of defence against prosecution for their
wrongdoings. This is against the principles of natural justice and against the nature of
an intelligent civilized society.
V. It is urged before this Hon’ble Court that such a child did not deserve to be treated as
a child and be allowed to re-mingle in society, particularly when the identity of the
child is to be kept a secret under Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 19 of the
Act, which provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, are also
illogical and were liable to be struck down. It is humbly submitted that in order to
prevent repeated offences by an individual, it is necessary to maintain the records of
the inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, in relation to juveniles so that
9
Section 82, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
10
Section 83, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
11
Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1
12
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act
shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in
conflict with law under such other law
13
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390.
Page | 20
such records would enable the authorities concerned to assess the criminal propensity
of an individual, which would call for a different approach to be taken at the time of
inquiry.
2.3. Undue sympathy with juvenile offenders will undermine our judicial system
I. It is submitted that punishment should always be proportionate/commensurate to the
gravity of offence14. The same has been reiterated in the case of Ravi @ Ram Chandra
vs. State of Rajasthan15, where the Court held that it is the nature and gravity of the
crime but not the age of the criminal, which are germane for consideration of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.
II. It is most humbly submitted that Justice demands that courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the
crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the
rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of
appropriate punishment. 16
III. It is urged before this Hon’ble Court that undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious
17
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having
regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed etc.
IV. The frightful incident of “Nirbhaya Delhi Gang Rape Case”[1], on December 16,
2012 shocked the whole nation and many debates were started among legal fraternity
and socialists. The main reason and issue of the debate was the involvement of
accused, who was just six months short to attain the age of 18 years. The involvement
of the accused in such a heinous crime of rape forced the Indian Legislation to
introduce a new law and thus, Indian Parliament came up with a new law which is
known as “ Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection), 2015.
The Introduction of the Act has replaced the existing juvenile laws and has introduced
some remarkable changes. One of the remarkable changes is juvenile under the age
group of 16 to 18 years should be tried as an adult.
14
State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 6 SCC 770.
15
AIR 1996 SC 787.
16
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. state of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
17
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sattan alias Satyendra and Ors, (2009) SCC 736
Page | 21
V. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that it should hear the loud cry for justice by
the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls 18which is
the case here with the 19-year-old victim. The counsel respectfully submits that if a
person is old enough to rape then he is old enough to be tried along with adults and
that is why he contends that the criterion of eighteen (18) years set out in the JJ Act
should not comprehend cases of grave offences in general and of heinous crimes
against women in particular that shakes the root of humanity in general.
accused.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the not justified in acquitting the
accused from the offence of murder, when the deceased died of liver injury and alcohol
poisoning which was caused by blows giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous
alcohol by the accused. It's more difficult to recover from alcohol poisoning. . Alcohol
poisoning can lead to permanent brain damage or death
The punch shocks the liver, the largest gland organ, and a centre of blood circulation,
and causes the victim to lose focus and drive, and can cause a breathless feeling in the victim.
Theoretically, yes. If the punch was hard enough to rupture or tear the liver, there is a high
chance you could die of internal bleeding, especially from the liver, as the liver has a high
blood supply. It also depends if you then sought treatment or left it alone - bleeding liver left
alone? Not good.
It’d have to be a mighty hard punch to do that amount of damage, but it is entirely possible to
die from the resulting bleeding.
3.2 How easily can the liver be damaged?

According to a 2013 study on liver injuries, if a healthy adult make was to take a direct liver
punch at 5 m/s, it would cause liver injury. The average male punches at a speed of 6 m/s,
18
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa. 2000(5) SCC 75.
Page | 22
with professional fighters almost double that. This could cause the liver to be ruptured, which
could cause low blood pressure, a fast pulse and in extreme cases, death.
.Issue 4. Whether the high court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the
remanding the matter ignoring the "evidences of eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and
"last seen theory" which proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts because
these witness plays a vital role so it could not be ignored easily.
4.1 Evidentiary Value of Eyewitness Statement
In the Criminal Justice System, statements of an eyewitness play an important role in

ensuring justice. The quality of eyewitness statements is presumed to be true and impartial as
they are made under an oath and by a third party who has no connection with the either
parties. Therefore, the importance of the witnesses in a Criminal Justice System cannot be
ignored. The admissibility of an eyewitness testimony has a long history in convicting and
acquitting the accused. It is believed that eyewitnesses are directly connected to the crime and
are present in the scene where the crimes have been committed.
Court’s decision on evidentiary value of eyewitness.

In the landmark decision of Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarkhand & Ors,19 the
Supreme Court held that eyewitnesses’ plays an important role in the Criminal Justice System
and every legislative measure in connection of witnesses contributes to the fundamental
20
principle of fair trial. Similarly in the case of Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik it was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an eyewitness statement cannot be ignored on the ground of
false implications before checking the evidences with proper care and caution. The court
further held that a testimony of eyewitness cannot be discarded on the ground of minor
variations.
19
2011 2 SCCC 178(India)
20
2001 AIR 164 SC (India).
Page | 23
4.2 Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or set of facts from which one could infer the fact
in question. For example, that a suspect is seen running away from a murder scene with a
weapon in hand is circumstantial evidence he committed the murder
Circumstantial evidence, also called “indirect evidence,” does not directly prove a defendant
is guilty; instead, it's evidence of another fact that can lead to the conclusion or inference that
the defendant is guilty.
The last seen theory no doubt is an important doctrine in Indian Evidence in law as if once
proved it shifts the burden on the accused to prove his innocence. However, it does not
completely discharge the prosecution of his duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt.
In the Shajneen murder case (2018) (daughter of Transcom Group Chairman Latifur
Rahman), it was held that the last seen theory is a part of circumstantial evidence, and if all
the circumstances negate the innocence of the accused then he can be convicted on the basis
of it.
Page | 24
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED,
ARGUMENTSADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY
REQUESTEDTHAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
 The petition filed as maintainable,
 The Juvenility should depend upon the nature of the offence committed
and not on the age,
 Matriculation certificate should be used to determine the age of a juvenile
in conflict with law
AND COURT MAY PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, OTHER ORDER THAT IT
MAY DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS, APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL HUMBLY
PRAY.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
Page | 25

Moot Case Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Case Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3RD JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IN THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

STATE OF INDIANA .......................................PETITIONER

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

❖ ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

❖ TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CR.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRI. L. J. / CR. L. J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

ILR INDIAN LAW REPORT

J.J JUVENILE JUSTICE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND RULES

1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

❖ LIST OF CASES CITED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Gurdev Singh V. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 258

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Prabhu V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr Lj 1373 (1373-1374) (Sc).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.1 under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act: -

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.2 How easily can the liver be damaged?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4.1 Evidentiary Value of Eyewitness Statement

In the Criminal Justice System, statements of an eyewitness play an important role in

Court’s decision on evidentiary value of eyewitness.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4.2 Circumstantial Evidence

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTSADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY

REQUESTEDTHAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO

ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

 The petition filed as maintainable,

and not on the age,

 Matriculation certificate should be used to determine the age of a juvenile

in conflict with law

MAY DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD

AND FOR THIS, APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL HUMBLY

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

You might also like